## Facts

- New York statutes required public contracts to include provisions allowing cancellation of existing contracts and a five-year bar on future public contracting if a contractor refused to waive immunity or testify about state contract dealings.
- Turley and other architects held public contracts subject to these provisions.
- During a grand jury investigation into alleged wrongdoing in public construction projects, the architects were summoned, asked to sign waivers of immunity, and questioned about their public contracts.
- The architects refused to execute waivers and declined to provide potentially incriminating testimony.
- Contracting authorities were notified of the refusals and directed to the disqualification statutes.
- The architects sued in federal court, asserting that the statutory scheme violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A three-judge federal district court declared the statutes unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to independent contractors questioned about public contract performance in official investigations, including grand jury proceedings.
2. Whether the state may impose severe economic sanctions (contract cancellation and multi-year disqualification) to compel a contractor to waive immunity or testify, without providing immunity coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction and held the statutes unconstitutional.
- The Fifth Amendment privilege applies to public contractors called to testify in official investigations; the state’s interest in integrity of public contracting does not eliminate the privilege.
- The state may not compel a waiver of immunity or testimony by threatening loss of existing and future contracts unless it offers immunity sufficient to replace the privilege (at least use-and-derivative-use immunity).
- A waiver obtained under threat of substantial economic sanction is compelled and not voluntary for Fifth Amendment purposes.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects witnesses summoned in grand jury and similar official inquiries, including those who do business with the state.
- Government may require public employees and public contractors to answer questions about official duties only if it provides immunity that is coextensive with the constitutional privilege.
- The government cannot indirectly compel incriminating testimony by conditioning employment, contracts, or eligibility for government benefits on surrender of the privilege.
- Economic penalties that force a choice between self-incrimination and serious loss of livelihood or business opportunity constitute unconstitutional compulsion absent adequate immunity.

## Conclusion

New York could not condition continued or future public contracting on contractors’ waiver of immunity or compelled testimony about potentially criminal conduct without granting immunity sufficient to supplant the Fifth Amendment privilege, so the disqualification and cancellation scheme was invalid.


Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)